Integrated Flood Management

1. Integrated Flood Management Integrated Flood Management addresses issues of flood management from the perspective of human security and sustainable development, within the overall framework of Integrated Water Resources Management. There are no universal criteria to determine environmentally friendly flood management practices. The presentation highlights some of the basic principles that need to be understood to adopt practices that suit the particular circumstances and follow a rational and balanced approach in addressing environmental issues in flood management.Integrated Flood Management addresses issues of flood management from the perspective of human security and sustainable development, within the overall framework of Integrated Water Resources Management.

3. Flood damages are increasing

4. Traditional Flood Management Options Source control takes the form of storage in the soil or via the soil and involves intervention in the process of the formation of runoff from rainfall. It is normally considered with its consequential impact on the erosion process, the time of concentration and evapo-transpiration. In assessing the likely effectiveness of source control, pre-flood conditions (e.g. frozen or saturated ground) need to be considered. Thus, a potential drawback with some forms of source control, and other forms of land use modification such as afforestation, is that their capacity to absorb or store rainfall depends on the antecedent conditions of the catchment. � In the traditional approach to decreasing the challenge presented by the flood, an attempt is made to modify the flood to make it easier to cope with: slow rising, with a long time to peak, and with a low peak level. Surface water storage, by way of dams and detention basins, is usually adopted to attenuate flood peaks. More often than not, such storage serves multiple purposes and the exclusive flood storage can be the first casualty in any conflict situation. Moreover, by completely eliminating the low floods such measures give a false sense of security. Storage has to be used in an appropriate combination with other structural and non-structural measures. � Dikes or flood embankments are most likely to be appropriate for flood plains that are already intensely used. Increasing the carrying capacity of the rivers, while disturbing its natural morphological regimes, has impacts on other river uses and has a tendency to shift the problem spatially and temporally. Deepening of channels may also affect the groundwater regime in the region. � Land use control is generally adopted where intensified development on a particular flood plain is undesirable. Providing incentives for development to be undertaken elsewhere can probably work better than simply trying to stop development on the flood plain. However, where land is under development pressure, especially from informal development, such planning constraints are unlikely to be effective. Flood-proofing or house raising are most likely to be appropriate where development intensities are low and properties are scattered or where the warning times are short. In frequently flood prone areas flood-proofing of the infrastructure and communication links can reduce the debilitating impacts of floods on the economy. � Flood warnings and timely emergency action are complementary to all forms of intervention. A combination of clear and accurate warning messages with a high level of community awareness gives the best level of preparedness for self-reliant action during floods. It is important to put in place public education programmes for hazard warnings to be successful in achieving the desired objective of not allowing the hazard to turn into a disaster. Flash floods present the greatest risk to life. However, in flash flood prone catchments it is unwise to rely upon a formal flood warning system as dissemination takes time. � Evacuation is an essential constituent of emergency planning. Depending upon circumstances, evacuation may be upward (e.g. into a flood refuge to a higher elevation) or outward. Outward evacuation is generally necessary where the depths of water are significant, flood velocities are high and buildings are flimsy (e.g. not masonry or concrete framed). For outward evacuation to be successful it must be planned in advance and the population concerned must know what to do in a flood emergency. To be effective evacuations require active participation of the communities right from the planning stage. Source control takes the form of storage in the soil or via the soil and involves intervention in the process of the formation of runoff from rainfall. It is normally considered with its consequential impact on the erosion process, the time of concentration and evapo-transpiration. In assessing the likely effectiveness of source control, pre-flood conditions (e.g. frozen or saturated ground) need to be considered. Thus, a potential drawback with some forms of source control, and other forms of land use modification such as afforestation, is that their capacity to absorb or store rainfall depends on the antecedent conditions of the catchment. � In the traditional approach to decreasing the challenge presented by the flood, an attempt is made to modify the flood to make it easier to cope with: slow rising, with a long time to peak, and with a low peak level. Surface water storage, by way of dams and detention basins, is usually adopted to attenuate flood peaks. More often than not, such storage serves multiple purposes and the exclusive flood storage can be the first casualty in any conflict situation. Moreover, by completely eliminating the low floods such measures give a false sense of security. Storage has to be used in an appropriate combination with other structural and non-structural measures. � Dikes or flood embankments are most likely to be appropriate for flood plains that are already intensely used. Increasing the carrying capacity of the rivers, while disturbing its natural morphological regimes, has impacts on other river uses and has a tendency to shift the problem spatially and temporally. Deepening of channels may also affect the groundwater regime in the region. � Land use control is generally adopted where intensified development on a particular flood plain is undesirable. Providing incentives for development to be undertaken elsewhere can probably work better than simply trying to stop development on the flood plain. However, where land is under development pressure, especially from informal development, such planning constraints are unlikely to be effective. Flood-proofing or house raising are most likely to be appropriate where development intensities are low and properties are scattered or where the warning times are short. In frequently flood prone areas flood-proofing of the infrastructure and communication links can reduce the debilitating impacts of floods on the economy. � Flood warnings and timely emergency action are complementary to all forms of intervention. A combination of clear and accurate warning messages with a high level of community awareness gives the best level of preparedness for self-reliant action during floods. It is important to put in place public education programmes for hazard warnings to be successful in achieving the desired objective of not allowing the hazard to turn into a disaster. Flash floods present the greatest risk to life. However, in flash flood prone catchments it is unwise to rely upon a formal flood warning system as dissemination takes time. � Evacuation is an essential constituent of emergency planning. Depending upon circumstances, evacuation may be upward (e.g. into a flood refuge to a higher elevation) or outward. Outward evacuation is generally necessary where the depths of water are significant, flood velocities are high and buildings are flimsy (e.g. not masonry or concrete framed). For outward evacuation to be successful it must be planned in advance and the population concerned must know what to do in a flood emergency. To be effective evacuations require active participation of the communities right from the planning stage.

5. Flood policy is a neglected water policy issue on the international as well as, in many cases, the national level

6. Challenges of Flood Management

9. Preparedness Mitigation and Response Recovery and rehabilitation

10. Flood and drought management Effective use of flood waters Ground water and surface water interaction in flood plains

11. Cross-sectoral integration of disaster management strategies Disaster risk assessment Early warning and forecasts

14. Land and Water Management Upstream and Downstream Structural and Non-structural Short term and Long-term Local and basin level measures Top down and Bottom up decision making Development needs with ecologic and economic concerns Functional Integration of Institutions

15. Strategies include: Reducing flooding Options: Dams and reservoirs, dikes, levees, and flood embankments, high flow diversions, catchment management, channel improvements (b) Reducing susceptibility to damage Options: Flood plain regulation, Development and redevelopment policies, Design and location of facilities, Housing and building codes, Flood-proofing, Flood forecasting and warning (c) Mitigating the impacts of flooding Options: Information and education, Disaster preparedness, Post flood recovery, Flood insurance (d) Preserving the natural resources of floodplains Options: Flood plain zoning and regulation Strategies include: Reducing flooding Options: Dams and reservoirs, dikes, levees, and flood embankments, high flow diversions, catchment management, channel improvements (b) Reducing susceptibility to damage Options: Flood plain regulation, Development and redevelopment policies, Design and location of facilities, Housing and building codes, Flood-proofing, Flood forecasting and warning (c) Mitigating the impacts of flooding Options: Information and education, Disaster preparedness, Post flood recovery, Flood insurance (d) Preserving the natural resources of floodplains Options: Flood plain zoning and regulation

18. Recognizing that water is a finite and vulnerable resource, differentiation between water resources management, flood management and drought management needs to be circumvented. Flood management plans need to be intertwined with drought management through the effective use of floodwater and/or by maximizing the �positive� aspects of floods. In arid and semi-arid climates in particular, floods are essentially the water resource. Whilst for most of the time runoff is essentially the water resource, it is only at the times of extremes that runoff is a problem. The positive effects of floodwater should be recognized in national/local water management plans. Groundwater and floodwater should be treated as linked resources and the role of flood plain retention capacities for groundwater recharge should be considered. Alluvial flood plains, particularly provide opportunities for groundwater storage of the floodwaters. Possibilities of accelerated artificial recharge, under given geological conditions need to be explored and utilized. The possibility of retaining part of the flood flows, as green water should be explored. However, in considering interventions that will change the runoff regime, one needs to consider the effects holistically. For example, taking measures to reduce runoff during the rainy season could be counter-productive if it also reduces runoff at other times of the year. More positively, integrating management across functions means that we may achieve multiple benefits. It would mean no more flood alleviation schemes per se, but only interventions, one purpose of which � and perhaps the primary purpose � would be to change the risk of flooding and/or its consequences. It would also mean that interventions that serve several different purposes simultaneously (e.g. to improve water quality as well as to improve the management of flow variations in the river) would be favoured. Integrated flood management, therefore, envisages both economies of scope (e.g. from integration across functions) and economies of scale (e.g. throughout the river basin). Conflicts of interests, however, need to be addressed in such multi-options interventions. Further, there is a need to manage all floods and not just some � e.g. not just those floods up to some design standard of protection, and in turn to design for failure. What happens when a flood more extreme than the design standard flood occurs and how such a flood will be managed need to be addressed. One needs to clearly identify areas that will have to be sacrificed for flood storage in such an extreme flood event in order to protect critical areas. Recognizing that water is a finite and vulnerable resource, differentiation between water resources management, flood management and drought management needs to be circumvented. Flood management plans need to be intertwined with drought management through the effective use of floodwater and/or by maximizing the �positive� aspects of floods. In arid and semi-arid climates in particular, floods are essentially the water resource. Whilst for most of the time runoff is essentially the water resource, it is only at the times of extremes that runoff is a problem. The positive effects of floodwater should be recognized in national/local water management plans. Groundwater and floodwater should be treated as linked resources and the role of flood plain retention capacities for groundwater recharge should be considered. Alluvial flood plains, particularly provide opportunities for groundwater storage of the floodwaters. Possibilities of accelerated artificial recharge, under given geological conditions need to be explored and utilized. The possibility of retaining part of the flood flows, as green water should be explored. However, in considering interventions that will change the runoff regime, one needs to consider the effects holistically. For example, taking measures to reduce runoff during the rainy season could be counter-productive if it also reduces runoff at other times of the year. More positively, integrating management across functions means that we may achieve multiple benefits. It would mean no more flood alleviation schemes per se, but only interventions, one purpose of which � and perhaps the primary purpose � would be to change the risk of flooding and/or its consequences. It would also mean that interventions that serve several different purposes simultaneously (e.g. to improve water quality as well as to improve the management of flow variations in the river) would be favoured. Integrated flood management, therefore, envisages both economies of scope (e.g. from integration across functions) and economies of scale (e.g. throughout the river basin). Conflicts of interests, however, need to be addressed in such multi-options interventions. Further, there is a need to manage all floods and not just some � e.g. not just those floods up to some design standard of protection, and in turn to design for failure. What happens when a flood more extreme than the design standard flood occurs and how such a flood will be managed need to be addressed. One needs to clearly identify areas that will have to be sacrificed for flood storage in such an extreme flood event in order to protect critical areas.

19. The definition of sustainable development agreed at the Rio Conference specifies two defining conditions: the involvement of the public at all levels of decision making and recognition of the role of women. Identification and Participation of Stakeholders: IFM, like IWRM, should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels. For the approach to be participatory it needs to be open, transparent, inclusive and communicative and requires decentralization of decision making with full public consultation and involvement of stakeholders in planning and implementation. All the upstream and downstream stakeholders representing different parts of the river basin need to be involved. The core of the debate in the stakeholder consultation process is frequently not what the objectives are but what they ought to be. Two aspects of this argument are: who has standing in the decision, what is the legitimacy of their standing, and by what right are they entitled to be heard; and, secondly, how to ensure that the powerful do not dominate the debate. It is essential that a good representative range of stakeholders is involved in the dialogue/decision making process leading to IFM. The impacts of flooding and of interventions are often differentially distributed between members of households and sections of a community. Women are usually the primary child and health care providers and so commonly experience a disproportionate share of the burdens of recovering from floods. They also play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water, and their special requirements in dealing with flood situations need to be reflected in the institutional arrangements. Integrated Flood Management has to keep gender based, religious and cultural differences in perspective. The participation of minorities/indigenous people and weaker sections of society needs to be ensured. The interests of other vulnerable sections of society, such as children and the elderly need to be specifically addressed while planning and executing interventions to reduce risks from flooding in the future, during a flood and its aftermath. The form of participation could vary, depending upon the social, political and cultural setup of the society. The participation can also take place through democratically elected representatives and spokespersons or through the various user groups such as water users associations, forest user groups etc. As IWRM and the IFM are not isolated issues, and usually mirror society�s general characteristics and problems, the adopted model for stakeholder participation will vary with the specific circumstances. The definition of sustainable development agreed at the Rio Conference specifies two defining conditions: the involvement of the public at all levels of decision making and recognition of the role of women. Identification and Participation of Stakeholders: IFM, like IWRM, should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels. For the approach to be participatory it needs to be open, transparent, inclusive and communicative and requires decentralization of decision making with full public consultation and involvement of stakeholders in planning and implementation. All the upstream and downstream stakeholders representing different parts of the river basin need to be involved. The core of the debate in the stakeholder consultation process is frequently not what the objectives are but what they ought to be. Two aspects of this argument are: who has standing in the decision, what is the legitimacy of their standing, and by what right are they entitled to be heard; and, secondly, how to ensure that the powerful do not dominate the debate. It is essential that a good representative range of stakeholders is involved in the dialogue/decision making process leading to IFM. The impacts of flooding and of interventions are often differentially distributed between members of households and sections of a community. Women are usually the primary child and health care providers and so commonly experience a disproportionate share of the burdens of recovering from floods. They also play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water, and their special requirements in dealing with flood situations need to be reflected in the institutional arrangements. Integrated Flood Management has to keep gender based, religious and cultural differences in perspective. The participation of minorities/indigenous people and weaker sections of society needs to be ensured. The interests of other vulnerable sections of society, such as children and the elderly need to be specifically addressed while planning and executing interventions to reduce risks from flooding in the future, during a flood and its aftermath. The form of participation could vary, depending upon the social, political and cultural setup of the society. The participation can also take place through democratically elected representatives and spokespersons or through the various user groups such as water users associations, forest user groups etc. As IWRM and the IFM are not isolated issues, and usually mirror society�s general characteristics and problems, the adopted model for stakeholder participation will vary with the specific circumstances.

20. Communities are exposed to various natural and man-made hazards and risks. A wide range of activities and agencies are involved in the successful implementation of disaster management strategies. They involve individuals, families and communities along with a cross-section of civil society such as research institutions, governments and voluntary organizations. All these institutions play vital roles in transforming warnings into preventive action. Members from all sectors, involving different disciplines must be involved in the process and carry out activities to ensure the implementation of disaster management plans. The success of disaster mitigation will be measured from the public understanding of the adoption of appropriate strategies and their implementation and preparedness. Integrated natural hazard impact mitigation to address all hazards holistically (�all hazard� emergency planning and management) is preferable to hazard specific approaches and hence IFM should be integrated into a wider risk management system. This helps in structured information exchange and the formation of effective organizational relationships. The approach has the benefit of improved treatment of common risks to life, efficient use of resources and personnel and includes development concerns along with emergency planning, prevention, recovery and mitigation schemes. It consequently ensures consistency in approaches to natural hazard management in all relevant national or local plans. Early warnings and forecasts are key links to the series of steps required to reduce the social and economic impact of all natural hazards including floods. However, to be effective, early warnings of all forms of natural hazards must emanate from a single officially designated authority with a legally assigned responsibility. Communities are exposed to various natural and man-made hazards and risks. A wide range of activities and agencies are involved in the successful implementation of disaster management strategies. They involve individuals, families and communities along with a cross-section of civil society such as research institutions, governments and voluntary organizations. All these institutions play vital roles in transforming warnings into preventive action. Members from all sectors, involving different disciplines must be involved in the process and carry out activities to ensure the implementation of disaster management plans. The success of disaster mitigation will be measured from the public understanding of the adoption of appropriate strategies and their implementation and preparedness. Integrated natural hazard impact mitigation to address all hazards holistically (�all hazard� emergency planning and management) is preferable to hazard specific approaches and hence IFM should be integrated into a wider risk management system. This helps in structured information exchange and the formation of effective organizational relationships. The approach has the benefit of improved treatment of common risks to life, efficient use of resources and personnel and includes development concerns along with emergency planning, prevention, recovery and mitigation schemes. It consequently ensures consistency in approaches to natural hazard management in all relevant national or local plans. Early warnings and forecasts are key links to the series of steps required to reduce the social and economic impact of all natural hazards including floods. However, to be effective, early warnings of all forms of natural hazards must emanate from a single officially designated authority with a legally assigned responsibility.

21. supported with appropriate Legislation and regulations; Institutional structures for proper coordination and appropriate linkages; Economic instruments; Enabling participatory processes; and Information management and exchange mechanisms.

22. Activities and outputs of the WMO/GWP Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM)

23. APFM Project TermInception Phase: 2001- 2002Implementation Phase I: 2002- 2006Implementation Phase II: 2006-2010 Secretariat Technical Support Unit (TSU) in WMO Fund Governments of Japan and the Netherlands

24. Activities being taken by APFM Compilation of IFM concept paper and supplementary papers Implementation of regional pilot projects Compilation of flood management case studies Establishment of linkages with APFM partners and contacts Dissemination of information

25. Regional pilot projects Pilot projects are being executed in South Asia, Africa, South America, and Central and Eastern Europe through GWP/ WMO regional networks.. Aim of pilot projects: develop and implement IFM concept and its application through demonstration.

26. Pilot Projects: Principles Demonstrate IFM elements Demand-driven Distributed geographical coverage Potential for up-scaling and outreach ? Synergy of local flood management requirements and APFM outreach requirements

27. South Asia Objectives Enable flood-prone communities to develop and strengthen self-help capacity and community-based institutions to improve flood preparedness and management on community level in Bangladesh, India and Nepal.

28. South Asia Outreach process (National) Country representatives pledged at national workshop to internalize the project approach and results into the overall national planning process and programmes for disaster reduction and flood management

29. South Asia :Main lessons learned Importance of allocating formal role to CFMC to enhance a sense of responsibility to tackle issues Effectiveness of Manual to develop skills to cope with floods Only field experience can give confidence for self help capacity Necessity of provision of continuous basic support to sustain community based activities

30. Quarai/Cuarheim transboundry basin Purpose and objectives: Establish a mechanism for coordinated bi-national management Launch joint risk assessment in a transboundary basin

31. The key to sustainability of the project: Continued involvement of the Water Authorities from Brazil and Uruguay Quarai/Cuarheim transboundry basin

32. Central and Eastern Europe Objective: �Increase the preparedness and response capacity of the local authorities and population in flash flood prone pilot communities to forecasts and warnings issued by respective authorities in order to reduce the vulnerability of the affected population.�

33. Outputs: Guidance materials for outreach on the national and regional level Outreach and Sustainability: First national outreach activities, larger country-wide or regional projects have identified for outreach Local NGOs crucial for sustaining project outputs on the local level Central and Eastern Europe

34. Main lessons learned CEE A dedicated team is crucial for innovation Reaching out to communities beyond traditional scope of hydromet institutes bears large potential for improved flash floods management procedures Continuous development of institutional framework is absolutely essential to back up roles of various actors

35. Flood Management Strategy  Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya Outcomes: Stakeholder based FM Strategy for the basin Sustainability: Cooperation with the Government of Kenya and JICA in�implementation of the strategy.

36. Flood Management Strategy  Kafue Basin, Zambia Purpose/Objectives Assessing flood impacts in the Kafue Basin Drawing up a flood management strategy for the basin Designing a flood forecasting system for the basin

37. Flood Management Policy Series Key characteristics Instrumental in bridging disciplinary gaps for IFM Expert-group based Peer-reviewed Specific target groups Policy Makers Flood Managers Experts in respective special fields Target group adapted language and format

38. Linkages With FHRC to compile IFM concept paper With DFO to compile a flood inundation map in Kenya, utilizing satellite imageries With UNECE on the IFM legal and environmental advocacy papers (on the latter also with IUCN and RAMSAR) With IWLRI to compile IFM legal advocacy paper With ADPC to compile advocacy paper on IFM social aspects With CapNet and UNITAR to develop IFM training module With WMO Member Countries through APFM contact points Close collaboration planned with ICHARM FHRC = Flood Hazard Research Centre, University of Middlesex, UK DFO = Dartmouth Flood Observatory ADPC = Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre ICHARM = International Center for Water Hazard and Risk Management (UNESCO Centre at the Public Works Research Institute (PWRI), Tsukuba, Japan) FHRC = Flood Hazard Research Centre, University of Middlesex, UK DFO = Dartmouth Flood Observatory ADPC = Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre ICHARM = International Center for Water Hazard and Risk Management (UNESCO Centre at the Public Works Research Institute (PWRI), Tsukuba, Japan)

39. For more details and outputshttp://www.apfm.infoapfm@wmo.int Thank you!